Communication and Culture in Global Software Development: The Case of Mauritius and South Africa

Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations Volume 4, 2009
Communication and Culture in

Global Software Development:
The Case of Mauritius and South Africa
Maureen Tanner
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
M.Tanner@uct.ac.za
Abstract
Global Software Development (GSD) is a growing sector in Mauritius and South Africa. With an
increasing number of information technology (IT) investors, both countries are being recognised
as IT hubs in the Southern African region; hence the need for further research on GSD in those
two countries. Furthermore, due to a highly diverse cultural setting prevailing in Mauritius and
South Africa, common GSD practices derived from other studies might not be fully successful
when applied in these contexts. It is thus useful to explore how alternative GSD practices have
been put in place to handle these cultural disparities and the resulting communication require-
ments. The study has been undertaken in an attempt to enlighten investors on the communication
and cultural practices that could be followed while partaking in GSD in Mauritius and South Af-
rica.
Keywords: Global Software Development, Culture, Communication, Mauritius, South Africa,
Communication Technology, Grounded Theory.
Introduction
Global Software Development (GSD) involves the development of application software through
interactions of people, organizations, and technology across nations with different backgrounds,
languages, and working styles (Herbsleb & Mockus, 2003). GSD is enacted through virtual teams
whose members transcend time, space, and culture and communicate through computer-mediated
technologies (Jarvenpaa, & Leidner, 1998). As Mohagheghi (2004) notes, IT outsourcing is one
of the approaches to GSD. Organisations choose to outsource in order, inter alia, to take advan-
tage of cost reduction, improve performance, and gain access to wider labour markets (Casey &
Richardson, 2006). Due to low labour costs in developing countries, more and more organisations
are opting to contract with organisations from these regions. However, as Herbsleb and Moitra
(2001) note, GSD is not easy to orchestrate, due mostly to cultural disparities and complex com-
munication requirements of virtual
teams.
Material published as part of this publication, either on-line or
in print, is copyrighted by the Informing Science Institute. The growth of outsourcing has been
Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these phenomenal. Indeed India is and is ex-
works for personal or classroom use is granted without fee pected to remain the primary delivery
provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit
or commercial advantage AND that copies 1) bear this notice location for IT outsourcing. However,
in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page. It is per- recent trends have shown that new geo-
missible to abstract these works so long as credit is given. To graphical locations are emerging as de-
copy in all other cases or to republish or to post on a server or livery time zones (Burton, 2009). Ex-
to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment
of a fee. Contact 0HPublisher@InformingScience.org to re-
amples of emerging IT Outsourcing des-
quest redistribution permission. tinations in Africa include Mauritius
Accepting Editor: Bob Travica

Communication and Culture in Global Software Development
(Burton, 2009) and South Africa (IT Match Online, 2008). Both countries are recognised as IT
hubs in the Southern African region (Burton, 2009; Knight, 2006). The attraction of the two coun-
tries is that they offer cheap and highly skilled labour, as well good IT infrastructures (Burton,
2009; Knight, 2006). The increasing investment rate in the two countries necessitates the need for
further research as a means to better inform the project planning and management decisions of
international investors in the region. It is also interesting to note that Mauritius and South Africa
are known to have diverse cultural heritage, as will be later discussed (Mauritius.Net, n.d.; “South
African languages and culture,” n.d.).
In spite of these developments, no GSD studies focusing on Mauritius and South Africa could be
identified. It might thus be useful to explore how these cultural disparities and the resulting com-
munication requirements are being handled in the two countries. Such knowledge might be useful
to potential investors when establishing their plan of action for GSD projects as existing practices
devised from more developed countries might not be entirely applicable to the Mauritian and
South African contexts.
This study has been undertaken in an attempt to explore the intricacies of communication and
cultural practices embraced within these two countries in the context of GSD. Both the offshore
and the onshore perspective have been considered. The Mauritian case study offered the view-
point for a culturally diverse offshore site as the main company, located in France, outsourced
some of its software development to a company on the island. The South African case study of-
fered the viewpoint for a culturally diverse onshore site as the local company outsourced some of
its software development to a company in India. Data for the study was gathered through semi-
structured interviews with different stakeholders. The data was analysed using Grounded Theory
analysis techniques. The results are part of a bigger study which covered several other aspects of
GSD in South Africa and Mauritius. However, this article shall focus only on communication and
culture aspects.
The paper is structured as follows. The next section describes the social context in which the
study was undertaken. This is followed by an overview of the role of communication and culture
in GSD. A synopsis of the research methodology is then provided followed by a description of
the cases. The analysis of the results is then detailed in the data analysis section. A discussion of
the key findings specific to the Mauritian and South African contexts is next provided. The con-
clusion then assesses the contribution of the research findings for both practitioners and the body
of knowledge.
The Social Context

In order to appreciate the contextual issues prevailing in these two countries, this section will
provide a brief overview of the outsourcing trend in Mauritius and South Africa.
South Africa
South Africa, also known as the “rainbow nation,” consists of one of the most complex and cul-
turally diverse populations in the world. Of the 49 million South Africans, 79.2% are African
(Black), 9.2% are White, 9% are Coloured and 2.6% are Indian/Asian (Statistics South Africa,
2008). The Black population is further divided into four major ethnic groups: namely, Nguni, So-
tho, Shangaan-Tsonga, and Venda. On the other hand, the White population is of the Afrikaans
(Dutch) (60%) and British descent (40%). There are also 11 official languages in South Africa
(Explore South Africa, n.d.).
South Africans were governed by apartheid laws from 1984 to 1994. According to that legal sys-
tem, people were classified into racial groups (White, Black, Indian, and Coloured) and separate
geographic areas were created for each racial group (“Apartheid South Africa”, n.d.). In April
58
Tanner
1994 the first multi-racial democratic elections were held and the apartheid regime was subse-
quently abolished. However, in spite of the elimination of the apartheid regime, the big gap be-
tween the haves and the have-nots based on racial lines still prevails in the country (Adato, Cart-
er, & May, 2004). Due to the diverse cultural heritage of South Africa, a study within this particu-
lar context could provide a different insight on the practices which are usually embraced by GSD
companies.
South Africa is most commonly known as an offshore site. For instance, according to the Global
Outsourcing Report, South Africa lies among the 20 best countries marked as “global opportu-
nity” for IT offshore investment and is predicted to rise to the 15th place by 2015 (Minevich &
Richter, 2005). However, South Africa can also be considered as an onshore site as the outsourc-
ing trend of South African companies to other countries has also been rising exponentially. For
instance, according to a Xerox survey undertaken in 2000, 94% of South African companies were
outsourcing their operations (Nothard, 2000). This demonstrates a high interest in GSD within
South Africa and justifies the need for research in that context. For the purpose of this study,
South Africa will be studied from the perspective of an onshore site, whereby a local company
chose to outsource its software development to India.
Mauritius
Mauritius is located in the South West Indian Ocean. The population of this island of 720 square
miles comprises a medley of all races, ethnic backgrounds, and cultures and is in many ways a
living reflection of East meeting West (Mauritius.net, n.d.). The population ethnicity consists of
Indo-Mauritians (68%), Creoles (27%), Sino-Mauritian which are of Chinese descent (3%), and
Franco-Mauritians (2%). Mauritius is also a bilingual country with English as the official lan-
guage. French dominates the public life but is, however, not an official language. Both English
and French are compulsory languages, which are learnt as from primary school (The World Fact-
book, n.d.). The English and French language proficiency prevailing in Mauritius originates from
the past French (1715 – 1810) and British (1810 – 1968) colonial establishments on the island.
Mauritius obtained independence from the British in March 1968 (InfoPlease, n.d.).
Mauritius is an attractive outsourcing destination. The Government of Mauritius has undertaken
to transform the island into a Cyber island and develop Information and Communication Tech-
nology (ICT) as the 5th pillar of the economy alongside sugar, textile, tourism, and financial ser-
vices (Burton, 2009). Between October 2006 and March 2007, 41 international ICT players
started operating in Mauritius. These included Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, HP, CISCO, Accenture,
Infosys, Hinduha Group, France Telecom, Teleforma, and TNT group (Burton, 2009).
By investing in the island, those ICT players seek to take advantage of the regulated jurisdiction
in place on the island. For instance, a few administrative relaxations have been effected and cer-
tain provisions of the domestic laws have been waived as a means to provide incentives to off-
shore investors. Several acts have been put in place including the Electronic Transaction Act, the
Data Protection Act, and the Cybercrime and the Computer Misuse Act (Jaddoo, 2009). ICT
players also invested in Mauritius as the island offers state-of-the-art telecommunications, a qual-
ity IT infrastructure, and favourable time zone of GMT+4, which are important backbones for
successful offshore setups (Tradersafrica, n.d.). For the purpose of this study, Mauritius will be
studied as an offshore site.
Communication and Culture in GSD

The role of communication and Culture in GSD will be discussed in the following sections.
59
Communication
Communication, particularly informal communication, plays a critical role in virtual teams and
GSD projects (Herbsleb & Mockus, 2003), and barriers hindering communication flow are nu-
merous (Perry, Staudenmayer, & Votta, 1994; Prikladnicki, Audy, & Evaristo, 2003). These chal-
lenges relate to the lack of unplanned encounters among the developers, the cost of initial contact,
the inability to communicate effectively, and the lack of trust and willingness to communicate
effectively (Herbsleb & Mockus, 2003).
Various practices have been proposed to mitigate these challenges (Damien, 2002). For instance,
communication issues are handled through regular meetings, which can either be ad-hoc or
planned, or organised through weekly video-conference sessions (Paasivaara & Lassenius, 2004).
These regular encounters improve the team’s project definition (Ramesh & Dennis, 2002), foster
socialisation, trust, respect among team members (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000), and enhance
subsequent electronic communication (Paasivaara, 2003). Individuals with outgoing personalities
are also sent as ambassadors and are given the explicit task of meeting people in a variety of
groups at the other sites. These face-to-face meetings are crucial, especially in the beginning of
projects, as they leverage the chances of having urgent and important questions answered (Paasi-
vaara, 2003).
Teams also collaborate by using various communication tools, ranging from telephone calls
(Hindus, Ackerman, Mainwaring, & Starr, 1996), fax, chat (Handel & Herbsleb, 2002), instant
messaging (Nardi, Whittaker, & Bradner, 2000), video conference (Dourish & Bly, 1992; Fish,
Kraut, & Root, 1992; Obata & Sasaki, 1998), email, and groupware applications (Majchrak, Rice,
King, Malhotra, & Ba, 2000; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). These practices are used to support
the four communication needs of GSD: namely, problem solving, informing and monitoring, rela-
tionship building, and decision-making and coordination (Paasivaara, 2003). However, their suc-
cess is limited, and they face challenges like poor design that does not facilitate adoption (Shami,
Bos, Wright, Hoch, Kuan, Olson, & Olson, 2004). Furthermore, the synchronicity of the commu-
nication tools is of no use in some cases. For instance, if in spite of the tools’ availability, indi-
viduals forget to communicate changes and updates made during the day to other dispersed team
members (Prikladnicki et al, 2003), it results in repeated work and time wastage (Ramesh & Den-
nis, 2002).
It might be interesting to understand the extent to which such practices are followed in Mauritius
and South Africa and whether new ones have been devised to fit these contexts. In order to do so,
it is, however, important to understand the intricacies behind the communication process. Hence,
parsing patterns and the shared experience, which are important components of the communica-
tion process, are detailed below.
Parsing Patterns and the Shared Experience

While living through various experiences, individuals tend to chop events into separate meaning-
ful chunks, which are then stored for later retrieval. This process is known as parsing (Cockburn,
2002). Individuals tend to parse experiences using different patterns, based on cultural or political
values, among others. This produces different information chunks that vary from person to per-
son, each representing a unique perception of the experience. Attempting to combine these infor-
mation chunks provide a distorted, simplified, and incomplete version of the experience. This
suggests that communication is determined by experience and language skills and that the phe-
nomenon of communication does not depend on what is transmitted but on what happens to the
person who receives it (Maturana & Varela, 1998).
People generally know that their intended message is correctly passed on to the listener according
to the feedback obtained from the latter. However, these return messages can be misinterpreted,
60
Tanner
leading the communicator to falsely conclude that the message is understood. In such cases, a
common experience to refer to, among the sender and the recipient, can decrease the risk of mis-
understanding and leverage the chances of having successful communication (Cockburn, 2002).
The shared experience is an important missing factor in GSD as individuals are less likely to have
participated in the same projects (Mockus & Herbsleb, 2001). Consequently, there is a higher risk
of having incomplete or incorrect information being passed among team members. This leads to a
higher probability of misunderstanding and communication failures.
The importance of the shared context has also been highlighted by Kogut and Meitu (2000) in
relation to product requirements elicitation and in the case of creative tasks. Communication is
never a perfect and complete process. According to Cockburn (2002), “People don’t even know
what it is that they wish to communicate.” Even if they did, recipients always have to bridge a
gap at some point. In globally distributed teams, the situation is often worsened by the fact that
members come from different cultures. As such, they are fundamentally different from each oth-
er, and the greater the difference, the smaller the possibility of bridging the gap.
Culture
Cultural issues prevail due to the fundamental differences in values governing people’s lives.
Based on their culture, individuals have different attitudes towards communication styles and pre-
ferences and behaviours (Perry et al., 1994; Prikladnicki et al., 2003). It is the boundary condition
for all personal communication (Gudykunst, & Matsumoto, 1996).
For instance, communication styles and preferences are characterised by the different ways in
which people express agreements and disagreements or ask questions. Different behaviours can
be perceived when acknowledgement by one person is sometimes mistaken for agreement by
someone else (Herbsleb, Paulish, & Bass, 2005). Differences in behaviours are also felt in how
individuals categorise things, what decision procedures they use, and the basis on which they eva-
luate themselves (Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998).
Cultural differences have a “negative” impact on communication (Van Ryssen & Hayes-Godar,
2000) causing people to decipher communication through their own cultural perspective. Studies
have also demonstrated that an awareness and understanding of these differences, through previ-
ous cultural exposure, helps to alleviate these misunderstandings (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999;
Kayworth & Leidner, 2000; Sarker & Sahay, 2002). Interestingly, two studies have contradicted
these findings (Kiel, 2003; Krutchen, 2004), whereby despite being aware of their cultural dis-
parities, team members still felt frustrated and communication was not very effective. This leaves
room for further research to really understand consequences of cultural disparities within GSD
and what coping strategies would be more appropriate.
Since individuals in virtual teams often belong to differing cultures (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999),
the need to address these challenges is therefore strong so as to enhance GSD project success
(Kayworth & Leidner, 2000). The different cultural awareness practices followed by GSD com-
panies are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1 - Cultural Awareness Practices

Cultural Awareness Practices
Intercultural training programs (Kayworth & Leidner, 2000; Sarker & Sahay, 2002)
Cultural liaisons / representatives (Carmel & Agarwal, 2001)
Technical or managerial liaisons / representatives (Heeks, Krishna, Nicholsen, & Sahay, 2001)
61
Intercultural training programs increase the awareness of the team members on the different cul-
tures prevailing in the team and the expected behavioural patterns of the dispersed team members.
Cultural liaisons and managerial representatives present at the different sites are meant to clarify
any misunderstandings that might occur due to cultural differences.
The next section details the methodology employed for this study.
Methodology
The research approach adopted for this study was interpretive, qualitative, and empirical in na-
ture. The approach was appropriate as it allowed for an understanding of the context as well as
“the process whereby the information systems influences and is influenced by the context” (Wal-
sham, 2002). As GSD is broad and complex and may be difficult to be studied outside the context
within which it occurs, case studies were useful.
Two case studies were drawn from Mauritius and South Africa respectively. For each case, the
situation in specific dispersed teams was studied and the communication and cultural practices
were uncovered. As the purpose of the research was to a generate theory applicable to various
organisational contexts, differences in organisational conditions were sought. These differences
relate to the interviewee role, the offshore and onshore sites, the software development method
employed, and the communication technology employed. This allowed for generalisation and
maximum application of information to other cases (Patton, 2002). The differences in the chosen
case studies are outlined in Table 2.
Table 2 - Characteristics of the Mauritian and South African Case Studies

Case Interviewee Role Offshore site Onshore site Software Communication
No Development Technology
method
Case 1 Software Developer Mauritius France Adapted Video conference
Team Leader Waterfall Email
/Prototyping Phone
Remote Desktop
Sharing
Case 2 Team Leader India South Africa Waterfall Video Conference
Software Developer
Analyst
Data Collection
Semi-structured interviews were the primary source of information as these allowed the re-
searcher to access the participants’ interpretation regarding actions or events (Walsham, 2002).
The interviews remained open-ended and assumed a conversational manner. Each respondent was
interviewed for one hour and a total of 13 interviews were conducted during the course of this
study (six from the Mauritian case, seven from the South African case). All the interviews were
conducted in Mauritius and South Africa respectively, but also included interviews of foreign
delegates/team members present at these respective sites at the time. The opinion of team mem-
bers from foreign sites (France in Case 1 and India in Case 2) was, therefore, also obtained.
A maximum variation sampling strategy was chosen. Such a strategy allowed the investigator to
obtain the broadest range of information and perspectives on the subject of study, namely GSD
(Guba & Lincoln, 1989). During the interviews, questions were asked pertaining to how GSD
was being practiced in the organisations from a communication and cultural perspective in order
to overcome GSD issues.
62
Tanner
Data Analysis
The grounded theory techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) were used for analysis purposes during
the course of this study. As required by the grounded theory techniques, there should be continu-
ous interplay between data collection and analysis (Myers & Avison, 2002). Through this itera-
tive approach, data analysis was performed in parallel to data collection, and the results of the
analysis informed and directed the data collection process. Data collected in this study was ana-
lysed using open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
The general idea behind open coding was to generate a list of concepts which were then grouped
into categories. As concepts were the basic building blocks of the theory, the first task in develop-
ing them was to open the data and reveal the name of these concepts (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, as
cited in Brown, 2005). This was achieved through constant comparative analysis by comparing
similarities and differences between data incidents. Discrete concepts were then produced and
labelled (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Comparisons were also made as a means to develop a common
name for multiple observations of data incidents (Locke, 2001). A sample open coding sheet is
given in Appendix 1.
Axial coding is defined as “the process of relating categories to their sub-categories, termed ‘ax-
ial’ because coding occurs around the axis of a category, linking categories at the level of proper-
ties and dimensions” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). During axial coding, statements from the inter-
view transcripts were analysed to uncover relationships among the concepts which were grouped
into categories. Each relationship was given a specific code name. Initially during the coding
process, each relationship identified from each statement was individually drawn and labelled on
paper. All related concepts and their corresponding relationships were then regrouped on a big
mind map at the end of one case study analysis. This mind map proved to be a useful research
instrument, allowing the researcher to visualise how the concepts were related to each other. It
also helped in forming preliminary research outcomes and to answer the research questions. After
the creation of the first mind map, the researcher proceeded to the analysis of the next case study.
These allowed for new concepts and relationships to be uncovered, and the validation of both the
existing categories and relationships. A sample axial coding sheet is given in Appendix 2.
The quote and the interview question provided only a simplistic view of the raw data on which
the study was based. The relationships instead emerged through the analysis of many different
contextual elements. Paragraphs from the body of text were studied in an attempt to make sense
of the different concepts and categories and their respective relationships.
Selective coding involved identifying the core category and trimming away excess categories not
strongly linked to the core category (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The first attempt at selective cod-
ing following the analysis of the second case study produced 15 high level concepts, regrouped in
seven categories. However, as the analysis process continued, these categories and concepts
gradually evolved and produced the final set of categories as described in the results and analysis
section.
Categories and their relationships were refined in two stages, namely, at the concept level and at
the relationship level. Refinement at the concept level was undertaken throughout the whole anal-
ysis process. Based on evidence in the data, some categories gradually evolved into more abstract
ones, which better described the phenomenon under study. Eventually, once the concept hierar-
chy reached a stable state, the core category was selected. All the high-level categories surround-
ing that core concept were then organised around the core category, so as to represent the essence
of the phenomenon under study. Refining at the relationship level was done according to Strauss
and Corbin’s (1998) recommendation: “… findings should be presented as a set of interrelated
concepts, not just a list of themes.” Therefore, all categories that did not participate in a relation-
ship were trimmed, and those which did not contribute to the theory, in spite of being linked to-
63
gether, were discarded. Lastly, the properties were categorised based on the number of relation-
ships they participated in and the number of times the properties occurred in the data. Those with
high occurrences and participation in relevant relationships were isolated and used to create the
story line (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Theoretical Saturation
In line with Coetsee (2006), theoretical saturation was demonstrated through the use of Figure 1,
which shows the number of concepts coded per interview and also the number of relationships
revealed per interview coded. As can be seen in the graph, the number of concepts identified did
not increase as analysis progressed. The number even slightly decreased. This is because more
effort was eventually placed towards creating and identifying properties and relationships (i.e.,
axial coding) as opposed to identifying new concepts. For instance, upon reaching interviews 12
and 13, both the number of concepts and the number of relationships dropped, indicating that a
saturation point was reached.
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Concepts coded per interview Relationship coded per interview
Figure 1 – Number of Concepts and Relationships from Coding Process
Sample
The sample in this study consisted of IT professionals from companies located in two countries—
Mauritius and South Africa—providing research data for two cases. Each is discussed in turn.
CASE 1 – Mauritius
Case 1 (C1) was conducted in an organisation having branches in France (Paris and Toulouse)
and in Mauritius that provided software for the French retail sector. The Mauritian branch was
involved in the development of application software for both the company’s internal use and for
external customers. The work was subcontracted by the company in France and mostly involved
the migration of the legacy software from VB6 to VB 2005. The Mauritian branch also provided
support and development work on the customer relationship management (CRM) system, the data
warehousing software, the project management application, the time keeping application, as well
as the main software applications deployed at the customers’ sites.
The Mauritian branch was composed of five software development teams and four migration
teams. As summarised in Table 3, interviews were conducted on team members from both migra-
tion and software development teams as well as a delegate from Paris. Composed of three mem-
bers, the first team (T1) handled the internal products of the company. Interview 1 was conducted
on a software developer from team T1. The second team (T2) was composed of four members
64
Tanner
and was responsible for migration work from VB6.0 to VB2005. Interview 2 was conducted on a
software developer from T2. The third team (T3) was composed of four members and collabo-
rated with both the Paris and Toulouse teams. They were responsible for both migration and de-
velopment work on the main applications. Interview 3 was conducted on the team leader and in-
terview four on one software developer of T3. The fourth team (T4) was composed of three team
members responsible for developing applications for customer relationship management, project
management, and time keeping. Interview 5 was conducted on the team leader of T4. Finally, in-
terview 6 was conducted on a delegate from France.
Table 3 - Case Study 1 Sample

Interview No Team Position
1 T1 Software Developer
3 T3 Team Leader
5 T4 Team Leader
6 Paris Onshore Delegate
CASE 2– South Africa

Case 2 (C2) was conducted in the IT department of a South African Insurance company. The IT
department was involved in the development and maintenance of call centre applications, com-
mission maintenance applications, and online share trading applications. Similarly to other insur-
ance companies worldwide, C2 previously invested in COBOL and assembly legacy applications.
At the time of the study, the department was involved in the migration of these applications to-
wards service oriented architecture. The project investigated during the case study was the com-
mission maintenance system. Originally written in Cobol 35 years ago, it calculated the amount
of commission to be paid to the brokers. The new application was being developed in Java.
The development of this application was outsourced to a vender called TCS. TCS was an Indian
company ranked at number 3 worldwide from an offshore vendor perspective. This vendor was
selected due to its experience in the development of a similar application for an Australian insur-
ance company. The team consisted of two systems analysts, one business analyst, five developers,
and two testers. Two of the five developers were from the South African team (SAT) while the
others were from TCS. The business analyst was from SAT while each systems analyst belonged
to SAT and TCS respectively. The same applied for the two testers. The major differences among
the SAT and the TCS resources lay in their basic qualifications and the number years of work
experience. The TCS resources were mostly engineers, while those from SAT were only high
school graduates. TCS resources had on average three years of work experience and were on av-
erage 24 years of age, while the SAT resources had about 20 years of experience and were on
average 38 years of age. Sample characteristics of C2 are summarised in Table 4.
65
Table 4 - Case Study 2 Sample

Interview No Position Team
1 Project Manager 1
2 Software Developer 1
3 Tester 1
4 Tester 1
5 Business Analyst 1
6 Software Developer Offshore delegate
7 Software Developer Offshore delegate
The cases chosen for this study comprised different cultural settings, with different history, work
processes and the level of experiences in GSD. Each team employed various forms of work proc-
esses, software development methods, and communication practices. This, therefore, laid ground
for rich responses from each of the participants of the study.
Data Analysis
This section describes the results from the coding process as well as the high level categories se-
lected for inclusion.
Results from Open Coding

During the open coding process, data represented by interview transcripts was examined in order
to identify as many concepts as possible. Related concepts were regrouped into categories, thus
achieving a proper level of abstraction and limiting the number of concepts the researcher had to
work with (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The names chosen for the concepts and categories were cho-
sen in such a way that the researcher was quickly reminded of its referent (Strauss & Corbin,
1998). A total of 238 concepts were identified in the study and 177 were considered relevant (as
discussed in the selective coding section). In order to limit the amount of information being dealt
with and to maintain some level of focus on the research questions, these concepts were organised
into higher-level categories.
The final hierarchy list consists of seven meta-categories and 28 categories. Categories were de-
veloped by identifying “properties” that defined them. Categories with many properties were con-
sidered as being theoretically rich and apt to describe the phenomenon under study. Table 5 pro-
vides a description of the meta-categories selected for the final theory. A description of each cat-
egory is provided as well as the number of properties, the number of out links, and the number of
in links for each of them. Appendix 3 provides the complete property description of the main cat-
egories relevant to this paper namely communication practices, culture, and technology.
66
Tanner
Table 5 - Meta Category Description

Meta - Description No of No of No of
Category properties out in links
links
Communica- Communication Practices describe how the communi- 19 14 11
tion Practices cation process was usually undertaken within two cas-
es. This category encompasses details of the communi-
cation process, the communication channel description,
communication facilitators, communication strategies
in place within the organisation, and the level of cues
being transmitted during the communication process.
The communication channel description relates to the
communication affiliation (either dry and impersonal or
warm), the communication level (either minimal or
constant), the communication style (either informal or
business style), the news type (either good or bad) and
the type of information being filtered through (either
wrong info or correct info).
Culture Culture can be seen as an external factor which impacts 6 6 2
on Communication Practices within the organisation. It
encompasses the national culture, organisational cul-
ture, the team culture, and the individual culture or per-
sonality.
The culture meta-category also represents the level of
cultural differences among people.
GSD Process The GSD Process Issues category refers to communica- 24 11 21
Issues tion, coordination, and software development issues
encountered within GSD.
GSD Project The GSD Project category describes a GSD project in 17 15 5
terms of the project size, the project importance, the
number of hours attributed to it, and the work type,
among others.
It also encompasses information about what contributes
to GSD project success, examples of which are the pro-
ductivity level, the project delivery speed, the quality,
and the software development precision achieved.
GSD Team For GSD to be a success, the GSD team should be 27 19 9
composed of individuals with key characteristics. The
GSD Team category describes the characteristics of a
GSD team based on the team members’ experience
level, their expertise, their specific characteristics, the
team recruitment management process, and the ideal
team structure.
67
Meta - Description No of No of No of
Category properties out in links
links
GSD Value GSD Value Issues are issues that occurred on a more 7 3 6
Issues individual and emotional level within GSD. This cate-
gory encompasses GSD trust issues, missing visual
cues, uncertainty issues, and work interaction issues.
GSD Value issues also occur within the GSD Project
context and arise due to the emotional differences
among the individuals.
Technology impacts on communication practices, GSD
Technology 14 9 6
process issues, GSD project, GSD team, GSD value
issues, and on technology itself. In this study, a wide
range of technologies are available to be used during
GSD, including chat, email, Net Meeting, phone, con-
ference calls, and video conference. Each of these is
effective when used for the right task and in the right
context. Some can be used to overcome the disadvan-
tages introduced by others. Furthermore, each of the
organisations seemed to have some level of preference
for one particular technology, based on their particular
communication and cultural needs.
Results from Axial Coding

This section introduces the axial links between the meta-categories. The relationships between
these categories are described as a means to provide a more animated description of each phe-
nomenon. Each category may serve as causal condition, intervening condition, action/interaction,
or a consequence (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The results relate to both case studies. Differences
and similarities across sites will be described in the discussion section.
Links from communication practices to communication practices

It was noted that it was hard for team members to have a proper perception of efforts put into the
project due to the lack of physical proximity during GSD. Meetings where dispersed team mem-
bers met in person facilitated the contact initiation and helped to bridge physical distance among
the team members. Proper planning prior to any meeting also facilitated the contact initiation and
was crucial for successful communication when three or more people were involved in the inter-
action process.
Team-customer communication strategies were also used to overcome communication issues
among dispersed team members. For instance, by restricting communication between only some
levels of management (e.g. team leaders and project managers), dispersed teams avoided commu-
nication issues.
Language interpretation issues were bridged by posting a professional liaison (foreign worker
from the onshore site) at the offshore site. The offshore teams then learnt to speak the foreign
language, thus facilitating the communication process. Good communication level was main-
tained through the implementation of flexi-time.
68
Tanner
Links from communication practices to GSD process issues

Communication problems were avoided through the adoption of a formal and professional com-
munication style. Such was the case because a communication style involving a high amount of
jargon introduced foreign language issues.
Constant communication was used to handle, manage, and avoid GSD Project delays. It allowed
every stakeholder to be aware of any existing or potential issues, thus leaving room for necessary
actions to be undertaken to handle and avoid the problems. Constant communication between the
developers and the team leaders was also crucial to avoid deadline issues.
A team-customer communication strategy whereby only team leaders offshore were allowed to
communicate with people at other sites was used to minimise the negative impact of time differ-
ence across the sites. In the absence of direct interaction, developers were only concerned with
their work and were thus not affected by the time difference while communicating. Such a strat-
egy overcame major communication issues as the number of people who were allowed to com-
municate was limited. By only allowing the team leaders to contact the project managers onshore,
coordination issues were avoided as more control was put in place. However, whenever the team
leaders were not available to act as communication liaison between the dispersed sites, coordina-
tion issues were introduced while applying such a communication scheme.
Links from communication practices to GSD project

If the team members had little or no perception of effort made by their fellow foreign team mem-
bers, the project visibility was reduced. In addition, project visibility was also reduced by only
allowing a certain category of team members (e.g. team leaders and project managers) to commu-
nicate with the clients or fellow dispersed workers. Such project visibility was however enhanced
through a high level of reassurance concerning the work progress, proper planning prior to any
communication (e.g. conference calls), and emails sent and responded to in due time.
Links from communication practices to GSD team

GSD participants were chosen for international meetings according to their job titles. For in-
stance, developers rarely met foreign project managers or customers. Such physical encounters
helped to improve the affiliation level among the team members. By having a foreign worker
(from the onshore site) established offshore, the adaptability level of the resources was also pro-
moted. It encouraged people to communicate by adapting to the culture of the foreign worker.
Links from communication practices to GSD value issues

In the absence of frequent physical encounters between the dispersed team members, the amount
of visual cues conveyed during subsequent conversations was reduced. The negative impact of
having limited visual cues conveyed during a conversation was compounded by the type of news
being conveyed. As such, bad news was communicated with as many visual cues as possible.
When team members mutually reassured themselves about work progress during the course of a
project, trust level was promoted. This was accomplished through regular phone calls to provide
feedback about the whole project evolution.
Links from communication practices to culture

When employees did not work in the same office, the amount of physical encounters between
them was limited. This further mitigated the cultural difference impact. Employees having no
contact with foreign team members were unable to describe the foreign culture and did not feel
any cultural difference. A formal and professional communication style was also used to over-
69
come negative cultural influences. By maintaining a professional tone of voice, work was more
efficiently performed.
Links from technology to communication practices

A good infrastructure setup for communication, in terms of phone lines, communal mail boxes,
etc., helped to bridge geographical distance and facilitated the communication process. There
were also different communication needs at different project phases, and different communication
technologies were used to cater for these needs. For instance, the video conference was used dur-
ing analysis. The phone was used to inform about the problems being encountered. The mail was
used to communicate with the project managers.
Links from technology to GSD process issues

A wide range of communication technologies (email, chat, video conference, net meeting applica-
tion, conference calls, phone) were used to alleviate GSD process issues. For instance, when re-
quirements were unclear or when the terms used to describe the requirements were not clear,
email and video conference were used to probe for further clarifications. Email was used to re-
quest confirmation when the language accent was too strong and prevented the message from be-
ing understood. Email was also of assistance during the scheduling of meetings in the proper time
zones. Technologies like chat, which did not require the team members to verbally communicate,
were used to overcome language accent issues.
However, poor technological support also hindered the communication process. Bandwidth limi-
tation introduced communication delays as it reduced the usage efficiency of the communication
tool. Inefficient phone lines introduced communication issues and communication delays as the
phone calls were longer than necessary. Slow connection speed also introduced GSD project de-
lays as the work process was slowed down and tasks were not completed on time, especially in
urgent situations. Jumbled up emails introduced coordination issues and delays during communi-
cation because of low cue transmission level.
Links from technology to GSD project

Conference calls were employed to support general GSD work forms and project management
tools helped to provide project visibility. However, connection speed caused some tools, like re-
mote desktop sharing, to be inappropriate and ineffective in conducting GSD project work.
Links from technology to technology

The communication tools were selected based on the extent to which they suited the dispersed
teams’ communication requirements. For instance, the connection speed impacted on the choice
of using video conference or not and enhanced the disadvantages of the communication tools like
remote desktop sharing and emails. One technology was used to overcome the disadvantages
conveyed by others. For instance, when the message is not properly expressed by email, the
phone was used.
Links from culture to communication practices

The team culture determined whether employees were allowed to contact external customers or
not. For instance, in teams having an informal arrangement with the customers (which describes
their flat hierarchical structure), team members were allowed to contact external customers.
The national culture governed the communication style employed by the team members. This
communication style could be diplomatic, straight forward, and even untactful. It also impacted
on the level of collaboration across the sites since, based on their culture, some individuals were
70
Tanner
more willing to help than others. National culture drove the team-customer communication strat-
egy. For instance, sites sharing a strong sense of hierarchy in their organisational structure did not
allow the developers to communicate with the project managers. The team members respected
this hierarchy even during the communication process.
Results from selective coding

The selective coding process was the final stage of the analysis process. It was however not con-
ducted in isolation but rather in parallel with open and axial coding and both at the concept and
relationship level. The set of categories to be included in the theory were gradually uncovered and
those properties having no relationships to other properties were discarded.
Two main methods were employed to identify the properties having greater theoretical relevance.
In the first instance, the number of links to and from a specific property was counted. The number
of occurrences of the property in the interview was also counted. Properties with highest number
of links and occurrences were considered to be more theoretically relevant or as being of high
concern to the respondents. Properties with no links or little amount of occurrences were dis-
carded. Properties could have a high amount of occurrences but without any links (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). However, those having several axial links were generally interdependent. This
implies that properties with high amount of links generally had high amount of occurrences. After
several iterations through open coding, axial coding and selective coding, the final model outlined
in Figure 2 eventually emerged. The resulting relationship diagram is described and discussed in
the following section.
Figure 2 – Final Research Model
71
Findings
The results presented in this paper are part of a bigger study which covered several other aspects
of GSD in South Africa and Mauritius, hence the complex final model presented in Figure 2.
However, as this paper solely focuses on the communication (including technology) culture, the
discussion will only be centred on these variables.
Communication Practices
Communication is a major challenge faced by GSD companies (Herbsleb & Grinter, 1999), and
the two South African and Mauritian companies studied are no exceptions. In essence, the study
reveals that effective communication practices have been devised to overcome communication
issues (GSD Process Issues) in these particular contexts. Some of these practices are in line with
those that have already been prescribed in past studies including international meetings, commu-
nication planning, and methods to ease initial contact (e.g. Herbsleb & Grinter, 1999; Herbsleb,
Zubrow, Goldenson, Hayes, & Paulk, 2003; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Paasivaara & Lassen-
ius, 2004). One of the communication practices, however, does not seem to corroborate with what
was mentioned in the literature.
In essence, past GSD studies reported that a high level of communication should be maintained
across all sites and participants should communicate across all the sites and job titles (e.g. Robil-
lard & Robillard, 2000; Seaman, 1996). But what was observed in the two case studies does not
support this communication practice. It appears that even with limited communication across all
job titles and across all sites, GSD projects can be successful. Communication should instead be
coordinated by one key person at one site, whose role is to pass on queries and issues to the other
site and to obtain answers from them. In Mauritius, the team leader was responsible for coordinat-
ing the communication process across the sites as was explained by one of the respondents:
“We don’t deal with them [The French team]. We ask our team leader and he will talk to
them. He will talk to the French guys and they will sort out a solution”.
The South African team members also contacted their Indian colleagues through the team leader:
“There was a team leader whom we contacted. It wasn’t the analyst or the developer, we
worked with the team lead”.
The use of a key communication liaison at each site did not seem to hinder the communication
flow in any major way in both the Mauritian and South African case studies. Instead, this com-
munication method can be used as a way to leverage coordination issues and to control and moni-
tor agreements being made between the different stakeholders across the sites. For instance it was
mentioned by the team leader in one of the Mauritian interviews (offshore site) that:
“…if a developer just calls and agrees on something with the project leader in France
and I am [team leader] not aware of it, there will be chaos. It is just for controlling what
is going on”.
A similar comment was made by a developer at the South African site (onshore site), whereby:
“…the key person will make sure that communication is going the right way. We need
coordination and we need to ensure that no one goes into irrelevant details while com-
municating offshore. It’s not supposed to be so”.
This implies that both the offshore and the onshore site should share the same vision about the
need for coordination through controlled communication process for this particular practice to be
a success.
72
Tanner
The usefulness of this communication practice can be further validated by the introduction of de-
lays within the GSD project in the absence of the key communication liaison. For instance, in the
Mauritian site, one interviewee reported on a situation where the team leader onshore was absent
and they were instead dealing directly with the developers at the onshore site. They mentioned:
“The project ran 10 to 12 days late, because we sent them a problem, and they sent it
back to us. But if the team leader was there, it would have been completed in the first
round”.
No similar example was reported in the South African case.
Nevertheless, the act of restricting communication across the sites to only key individuals does
not imply less frequent communication threads. On the contrary, stakeholders should still com-
municate frequently. It was reported by a developer in the Mauritian case study that the team
leader:
“…phone them [France onshore site] everyday to give feedback. [Mauritian team leader
and onshore manager] talk to each other every day and if there is a problem, they will
tell us that the job is not well done and something has to be done”.
Similarly, in the South African case [onshore site], the need for frequent communication was
never undermined as can be seen in a statement made by one of the developers:
“…we have to communicate all the time to discuss about issues that we’ve had the previ-
ous day and how to overcome them”.
Communication frequency should also occur among the stakeholders within the different sites. As
opposed to communicating with their team members across the sites, developers instead exten-
sively communicated among themselves and with their team leaders at their respective site. For
instance, as reported by a developer in the Mauritian case study, problem solving would proceed
in the following way:
“…[we] deal directly with the team leader. He will be aware of the problem. If there are
any technical problems, we also call the team leader and he comes. Because we commu-
nicate a lot, there isn’t any problem. We do not sit idle, so there are no delays”.
In addition to frequency, some level of flexibility should also be allowed within the whole com-
munication practice. For instance, both the Mauritian and the South African cases revealed that
even though only the team leaders were officially allowed to contact the managers onshore, de-
velopers are sometimes allowed to do so, whenever specific issues needed to be addressed. For
instance, in the Mauritian case, a developer stated that “if he [the team leader] is not here, and I
am having some problem, then I can call”. Even the team leader acknowledged that in his ab-
sence: “…if there is a problem and if the developers are blocked, they can contact the people on-
shore”. In the South African case study, a developer offshore made a similar statement:
“…if specific answers are needed, then you can talk to the specific developer or tester
working on that specific task”.
Culture
The cultural heritage seems to influence GSD in both Mauritian and South African cases. For
instance, the success of the previously described communication practice (restricted communica-
tion across the sites) also appears to be dependent on the culture of the onshore and offshore site.
In the organisations from the offshore sites, namely Mauritius and India, a high adaptability level
seemed to prevail. Participants from both Mauritius and India identified themselves as being
highly adaptable and used this cultural trait to explain why they accepted and embraced this form
of communication practice. For instance, one Mauritian interviewee mentioned that:
73
“… sometimes I wish that I could communicate more but I understand that it’s the way
that the work process has been set up and I have to abide to it. So I just adapt and follow
the rule, and it works”.
In turn, one Indian interviewee stated that “we [the Indian participants] adapt very much”. Even
the South African participants acknowledged the high adaptability level of their foreign co-
workers: “They adapt more than us, I think. And it is more difficult for them than for us”.
The use of restricted communication across the sites seems to be appropriate for onshore sites
with hierarchical organisational cultures. In essence, if at the onshore site participants are prone to
respecting organisational hierarchies, the communication will be organised in a hierarchical man-
ner across the dispersed sites. Therefore, team members offshore are expected to communicate to
their team leaders and team leaders then communicate to project managers onshore. One of the
Mauritian interviewees explained:
“French people enjoy hierarchy. They respect all the hierarchical levels very seriously
and you can’t bypass someone to go to the manager. It’s something which is not accept-
able in their culture”.
No similar comment was made in the South African case study.
The lack of knowledge pertaining to the offshore culture also influences effectiveness of GSD
practices prescribed by past studies. For instance, in the South African case study, the use of tra-
vel and international meetings was not always successful. This GSD practice is, however, popular
in the GSD literature and is recognised as an efficient one (Paasivaara, 2003). For the South Afri-
can case, delegates from the South African teams were sent to the Indian offshore site but due to
ignorance and fear pertaining to the Indian culture, the visit was short and inefficient. The state-
ment made by one of the South African interviewees clearly illustrates this point:
“…a few of them were women, so their husbands were scared that they were going to get
raped or going to get mutilated. Although none of that actually happened, they themselves
were very scared. Even though they were staying in 5 star hotels, they used to lock all their
doors and put a cabinet on the door so that nobody can come in. The previous team that
went there, they never got out of the hotel. They went in the car to the hotel and in the car
to the office. They stayed there 3 weeks and they never stepped out of the hotel. Eventually
they could not take it anymore and they came back before the end of the mission”.
Ignorance, which appears to lead to fear hence impacts on the success of the GSD prescribed
practices. Therefore, it appears that some level of open-mindedness is crucial, and that stake-
holders should be open to new cultures. On the other hand, for the Mauritius case study (offshore)
the French offshore team had more open-minded delegates visiting Mauritius. As mentioned by
an interviewee from the Mauritian case study:
“They came and they were very friendly. They trained us, and showed us how to do the job
and they were very helpful. We got used to them and to their ways of doing things”.
Furthermore, when some delegates from the Indian offshore team visited the South African on-
shore site, the visit was also successful as can be seen in this statement:
“…and then this year, we said that we’re going to bring those resources [from India] to do
the whole thing here, and just try out the model. And it worked out pretty well”.
It can therefore be stated that the cultural heritage as well as the level of ignorance pertaining to
the other cultures impacts on the effectiveness of prescribed GSD practices.
74
Tanner
Technology and Communication Practices

The study reveals that a wide range of technologies are currently being employed in the Mauritian
and South African GSD context. This goes in line with what was prescribed by previous GSD
studies stating that a wide range of technologies should be employed across the dispersed sites
(Carmel, 1999; Herring & Rees, 2001). However, it appears that the organisations under study
favoured specific technologies based on their infrastructure. When the infrastructure could sup-
port technologies requiring high communication speed, video conference was favoured. In other
circumstances, the phone or emails were employed. For instance, in the Mauritian case, practitio-
ners mostly employed the video conference tool as they did not encounter many bandwidth prob-
lems, as the following statement indicates:
“We mostly use video conference and we do not experience any delays due to lack of band-
width”
In the South African case, video conference was not employed due to bandwidth limitations, as
the following statement indicates:
“In South Africa we encounter serious bandwidth issues while talking to Belgium or the rest
of the world. Sometimes, while talking to Belgium, the line goes down. So we do get commu-
nication interruptions because of bandwidth limitations in South Africa. Hence we do not
use video conference”
Both cases also reveal that a wide range of technologies are employed to match specific forms of
communication practices. For instance, email was used when formal communication was re-
quired, the discussion thread had to be recorded for document approval and sign-off, document
sharing, agreement seeking, confirmation and clarifications. Here are some examples:
“We normally use the email for formal tasks. For instance if we are launching a new pro-
ject, or if we completed a project, or if we have a recurring issue, we send emails.”
“Email is generally for transfer of documentation like agenda, meeting minutes, or UML
documents [technical diagrams].”
“Email is beneficial whenever you need a written confirmation on something. For example
an approval on the cost.”
“When we deliver the project, if there are issues, clarifications or modifications, they send
us a mail officially.”
“Email is very effective. We even get to a point where we get sign off for documents by
email”
In the Mauritian and South African cases, the phone was employed whenever urgent tasks had to
be accomplished, to quickly inform stakeholders about problems encountered during the project,
to support the requirements elicitation process, and to minimise uncertainty, as the following
statements indicate:
“Phone is important when there is something very urgent. For example, if there are issues
which must be fixed urgently, we just phone them.”
“The phone is used when we need to get an answer right away.”
“During the analysis phase of the project, if we are not sure of some requirements specified
in the documentation, we phone them to obtain some clarifications.”
Instant messaging applications were only employed in the South African case study. These tools
were found appropriate when quick responses were expected, presence awareness was required,
and message tracking had to be maintained, as indicated below:
75
“And I like the fact that instant messages can be saved. You can go back and look for it if
you want to.”
“Instant messaging is used for status updates. ‘There is this kind of issue, are you fixing it?’
It’s just for quick feedback. It’s easier than going on the phone.”
“If we didn’t have instant messaging, it would have made life so much difficult. I think it’s
one of the best communicating tool that I’ve used. I’ve got my list of contacts opened perma-
nently and I can see whether the person’s available or not.”
Teleconference was often employed in both the South African and the Mauritian case study. The
technology was frequently used for large projects, during the analysis and elicitation phase, to
promote uncertainty minimization, and for agreement seeking procedures. Here are two exam-
ples:
“With teleconference, if you are confused while someone is explaining a concept, you can
immediately stop them and you can ask your question. And when the issue is clarified,
you can ask them to continue. So you can exchange ideas quickly.”
“We can have a group discussion with teleconference; everyone is available and can
make suggestions. Decisions are immediately taken. So if we are experiencing issues, we
have a teleconference; we sit, talk, and make decisions.”
A systems analyst from the Mauritian case also mentioned that project management tools im-
proved the collaboration process across the sites, as this technology allowed information to be
conveyed in different forms, project information (delivery date, testing schedule) stored, and doc-
uments managed:
“We use project a project management tool. The tool is good as it promotes collaboration as
we all have access to relevant information pertaining to a project.”
This implies that GSD practitioners in Mauritius and South Africa are well aware of their differ-
ent communication needs, pertaining to the project type and the different project phases. The
communication technology is then chosen accordingly.
Limitations inherent to the use of some technologies are circumvented by the processes followed
which are derived from culture prevailing in the organisation. For instance, in the South African
case delays could be encountered due to the asynchronous nature of emails were managed
through clear contract negotiations and agreement seeking mechanisms which prevailed in the
organisational culture, as one respondent put it:
“Email delays are not an issue. In the contract signed with the client, we ask for three-four
working days to respond to email .If they do not abide to the contract, we escalate to upper
management.”
Technology and Culture

The results of the study also suggest that culture impacts on the choice of technology employed
within the organisation. For instance, in the South African case, the organisational culture valued
upfront agreement seeking and, therefore, technologies that seemed to facilitate this process were
mostly employed. Here is one illustration:
“We even get to a point where we get to sign off for documents by email. If you are in
agreement with what you’re doing, you send an email to confirm. And then we upload eve-
rything and we attach and then store it to our project management directory”
In the Mauritian case, culture also impacted on the choice of technology. For instance, as previ-
ously explained, the organisational culture was hierarchical and only team leaders were allowed
76
Tanner
to communicate with the onshore team. In consequence, only team leaders had telephone lines at
their desk. Here is one illustration:
“Not everyone has a phone and only the team leaders have phone lines. I don’t use the
phone. Only the team leaders do, as they need to contact the project managers.”
Based on the case studies, it also appears that by combining the use of several technologies, cul-
tural requirements are satisfied. Cultures that prefer formal arrangements and procedures prefer
emails in combinations with tools like conference calls over other forms of communication tools.
For instance, both in the Mauritian and the South African case, documents requiring approval and
sign-off were sent off by emails for prior reading, and meetings were then organised and confer-
ence calls were then scheduled to discuss any potential amendments to the document. Follow
some indicative statements:
”The approach is that you send a document by email and setup a conference call meeting
to go through the document.”
“We use the email for formal things. If we are launching a new project, completed a pro-
ject and sending it off to be validated, or if we have a problem needing to be solved, we
send an email. And if the mail itself is not sufficient, then we phone that person to request
for more information.”
The impact of culture on the choice of communication technology can also be seen in the use of
instant messaging applications. The South African organisation described themselves as “easy
going and informal” and hence enjoyed using instant messaging applications which they consid-
ered as being informal:
“I think chat is the most efficient... And the formality of email is gone. No-one is formal on
chat. I think that’s quite efficient.”
In the Mauritian case study, culture impacted on the choice of technology primarily when lan-
guage barriers had to be avoided. For instance, some Mauritian developers who were not very
fluent in French and in expressing themselves with the correct French accent while speaking pre-
ferred the use of email over the phone. Here is one typical comment:
“If I speak with someone who speaks a bit quickly over the phone, I won’t feel at ease. So I
take much time in understanding. So that’s why I prefer email over the phone.”
It can also be noted that culture impacts on the effective use of the technology employed for
communication. For instance, while using the video conference tool, the Mauritian team at times
felt that the communication pace was too fast and that they could not follow the course of the
conversation. Video conference offered visual connection across the sites and it could have been
easy for the Mauritian team to stop the flow and probe for further information. However, due to
their culture whereby interruptions were considered as rude, they did not and allowed the video
conference meeting to proceed. This reduced the effectiveness of the video conference system
that, under other cultural circumstances, could have been more effective. Here is an illustration of
this finding:
“The main disadvantage I would say is that sometimes they go a bit fast. And it’s not very
polite for us to say: ‘OK I did not understand this part’. Most of the time, we prefer to lis-
ten to them. It’s very rare that we have immediate questions because we have to analyse
the documentation to see what’s happening, how should we do and proceed on, and then
we take some decisions. That I would say is the main issue, it’s a bit fast.”
Culture impacting on the effective usage of the technology could also be seen in the use of email
by the Mauritian team. Emails had to be written in French while using an English keyboard.
Hence the process was not efficient. Based on the French vocabulary and grammar special char-
77
acters had to be typed which could not be easily be inserted while using an English keyboard.
One respondent reflected on this challenge in the following way:
“When using mail, you have big problems. It is difficult to write long emails as it is time
consuming and the keyboard that we use in an English one. Since they expect us to use very
formal French we have to insert the accents, and it is very difficult to do so.”
In contrast, if the organisation did not share a culture where formal writing style was required, the
accents could have been overlooked and the use of an English keyboard to write emails would not
have been complicated.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore GSD in the South African (onshore) and Mauritian (off-
shore) context, to understand the various forms of communication practices and the influence of
culture on GSD success. The study was performed through multiple qualitative case studies with-
in two focal GSD organisations located in South Africa and Mauritius. The grounded theory me-
thodology was applied to analyse the data.
The findings show that communication practice whereby one key person at all sites is responsible
for communication management and coordination can be successful in both the Mauritian and
South African context. The communication practice is typically successful provided that the fre-
quency of communication within and across the dispersed sites is maintained. Some level of flex-
ibility is also required so that people (other than the key communicant) are allowed to communi-
cate to other dispersed sites in the absence of the coordinator or when specific answers are re-
quired. The offshore teams should also possess high adaptability to embrace the communication
practice, which is also best suited to a highly hierarchical onshore culture. The other major find-
ing of the study relates to the fact that the cultural heritage of a country as well as the level of ig-
norance pertaining to the other culture should be taken into consideration as it might affect the
effectiveness of GSD practices. Finally, with respect to technology, the study has found that the
selection of communication technologies is driven by communication and cultural needs. Culture
also influences the effectiveness with which communication technologies are used.
Practical Contributions
Findings from this study might be relevant to practitioners wishing to partake in GSD in the Mau-
ritian or the South African setting. In essence, it was demonstrated that the communication coor-
dinator practice can be effective in the Mauritian setting and practitioners can therefore chose to
embrace it if need be. The findings also inform practitioners about the need to take the special
cultural heritage of South Africa into consideration when applying GSD prescribed practices in
that context.
Theoretical Contributions
Numerous findings corroborate what was previously prescribed in literature. For instance, in line
with Herbsleb and Grinter (1999), the two case studies reveal that early international meetings
should be held to facilitate contact initiation, bridge physical distance among team members, and
mitigate the disadvantages of some communication tools. In conjunction to what was prescribed
by Paasivaara (2003), it appears that communication liaisons should also be sent to the dispersed
sites to reduce communication issues and the negative impact of time zone difference. Further-
more, the results suggest that frequent meetings (weekly video conference, ad-hoc meetings, and
emergency workshops) should also be held to reduce communication misunderstandings and
bridge distance, as prescribed by Paasivaara and Lessenius (2004). It also appears that constant
communication throughout the GSD project is an important factor contributing to GSD success as
78
Tanner
it overcomes deadline issues. This finding corroborates what was prescribed by Herbsleb, Pau-
lish and Bass (2005). In line with Suchan and Hayzak (2001), the study also suggests that the use
of one common language while communicating should also be employed as a means to provide a
shared understanding of the context and to minimise communication issues due to information
loss.
However, the study also identified key practices which appear to add to the body of knowledge.
In essence, it was found that even through limited communication across all job titles and across
all sites, GSD can be successful as time zone difference and communication issues can be miti-
gated. The study also uncovered that communication should, however, be carefully planned and
uncertainty minimisation techniques should be employed as a means to facilitate contact initiation
and improve communication process by reducing the risk of having disagreements.
Some cultural practices uncovered in this study are also in concordance to literature. For instance,
in line with Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), Kayworth and Leidner (2000) and Sarker and Sahay
(2002) the result suggest that cultural awareness programs should be held as a means to reduce
the negative influence of cultural difference. It also appears that the cultural difference impact can
be mitigated through the use of cultural liaisons (as seen in Carmel & Agarwal, 2001), and tech-
nical and managerial liaisons (as seen in Heeks et al., 2001).
However, as opposed to literature, the study reveals communication practices should be employed
in accordance to the cultural traits of the participants. Also, if limited interactions occur among
the participants, cultural issues and misunderstandings can be avoided. The study finally contrib-
utes to theory by revealing that in spite of adopting commonly accepted GSD practices like inter-
national meetings or the use of rotation of management, these can fail if the delegates are not
open-minded and well versed about the culture of their foreign colleagues.
In line with literature, the study reveals that in the absence of adequate technology, the whole
GSD process would not be feasible (Dourish & Bly, 1992; Handel & Herbsleb, 2002; Hindus et
al., 1996; Majchrak et al., 2000; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000 Nardi et al., 2000; Obata & Sasaki,
1998). In particular, based on the result of the study, it can be posited that a wide range of tech-
nologies should be employed, and each tool should be suited for one specific form of communica-
tion practice or culture. As such, provided that the infrastructure is satisfactory and that the right
tool is employed, the communication process should not fail and minimal issues should be en-
countered.
References
Adato, M., Carter, M., & May, J. (2004). Sense in sociability? Social exclusion and persistent poverty in
South Africa. Proceedings of the Conference on Combating Persistent Poverty in Africa, 15–16
November, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Apartheid South Africa. (n.d.). History of South Africa. Retrieved April 24, 2009 from
http://www.southafrica.to/history/Apartheid/apartheid.htm
Brown, I. (2005). Espoused theory versus theory in use: The case of strategic information systems plan-
ning. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Cape Town.
Burton, N. (2009). ICT and business process outsourcing (BPO) in Mauritius. Retrieved April 24, 2009
from www.uneca.org/codi/codi5/content/CODI-V-ICT_BPO_Mauritius-Burton-EN.ppt
Carmel, E. (1999). Global software team: Collaborating across borders and time zones. New Jersey: Pear-
son Prentice-Hall.
Carmel, E., & Agarwal, R. (2001). Tactical approaches for alleviating distance in global software develop-
ment. IEEE Software, 18(2), 22-29.
79
Casey, V., & Richardson, I. (2006). Uncovering the reality within virtual software teams. Proceedings of
the 2006 International Workshop on Global Software Development for the Practitioner, Shanghai,
China.
Cockburn, H. (2002). Agile software development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Coetsee, R. (2006). Towards a theory for enterprise architecture – A South African study. Masters Thesis.
University of Cape Town.
Damian, D. (2002). Workshop on global software development. Proceedings of International Conference
on Software Engineering (ICSE), Orlando, Florida, USA.
Dourish, P., & Bly, S. (1992). Portholes: Supporting awareness in a distributed work group. Proceedings of
the Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI) Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, Monterey, CA, United States
Explore South Africa. (n.d.). South Africa cultures. Retrieved April 24, 2009 from
http://www.exploresouthafrica.net/culture/
Fish, R. S., Kraut, R. E., & Root, R. W. (1992). Evaluating video as a technology for informal communica-
tion. Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI) Confer-
ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Monterey, CA, United States
Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychol-
ogy. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzay (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. Boston, MA:
McGraw Hill Education.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publica-
tions.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Cross cultural variability of communication. In W. B. Gudy-
kunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cul-
tures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Handel, M., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2002). I M Everywhere: What is chat doing in the workplace? Proceedings
of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), New Orleans, Lou-
isiana, USA.
Heeks, R., Krishna, S., Nicholsen, S. B., & Sahay, S. (2001). Synching or sinking: Global software out-
sourcing relationships. IEEE Software, 18(2), 54-60.
Herbsleb, J. D., & Grinter, R. (1999). Architectures, coordination, and distance: Conway’s law and beyond.
IEEE Software, 16(5), 63-70.
Herbsleb, J. D., & Mockus, A. (2003). An empirical study of speed and communication in globally distrib-
uted software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(9), 481-494.
Herbsleb, J. D., & Moitra, D. (2001). Global software development. IEEE Software, 18(2), 16-20.
Herbsleb, J. D., Paulish, D. J., & Bass, M. (2005). Global software development experience from nine pro-
jects. International Workshop on Global Software Development for the Practitioner. St. Louis, Mis-
souri, USA.
Herbsleb, J. D., Zubrow, D., Goldenson, D., Hayes, W., & Paulk, M. (2003). Software quality and the ca-
pability maturity model. Communications of the ACM, 40(6), 30-40.
Herring, R., & Rees, M. (2001). Internet-based collaborative software development using Microsoft tools.
Proceedings of the 5th World Multiconference on Systematics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando,
Florida.
Hindus, D., Ackerman, M. S., Mainwaring, S., & Starr, B. (1996). Thunder wire: A field study of an audio-
only media space. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work Conference, Boston,
MA, United States.
80
Tanner
InfoPlease. (n.d.). Mauritius. Retrieved April 24, 2009 from

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107775.html
IT Match Online. (2008). Outsourcing destinations. Retrieved April 24, 2009 from
http://www.itmatchonline.com/itoutsourcing_destinations.php
Jaddoo, R. (2009). Mauritius Board of Investment: Mauritius: The island of opportunity. Retrieved August
21, 2009 from http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/projects/island-of-mauritius/
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Com-
puter Mediated Communication, 3(4).
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organisation
Science, 10(6), 791-815.
Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success. European
Management Journal, 18(2), 183-194.
Kiel, L. (2003). Experiences in distributed development: A case study. Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Global Software Development (ICSE Workshop), Portland, Oregon, USA
Knight, G. (2006). South Africa heading for economic crisis? Retrieved June 29, 2006 from
http://www.oneafrikan.com/
Kogut, B., & Meitu, A. (2000). The emergence of e-innovation: Insights from open source software devel-
opment. A working Paper of the Reginald H. Jones Center, 1-32.
Kruchten, P. (2004). Analysing intercultural factors affecting global software development. Proceedings of
the 3rd International Workshop on Global Software Development, co-located with ICSE, Edinburgh,
Scotland.
Locke, K (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage Publications
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R., King, N., Malhotra, A., & Ba, S. (2000). Computer-mediated inter-organisational
knowledge-sharing: Insights from a virtual team innovating using a collaborative tool. Information Re-
sources Management Journal, 13(1), 44-53.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1998). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding.
Boston: MA: Shambhala.
Mauritius.Net. (n.d.). Mauritius Info. Retrieved April 24, 2009 from
http://www.mauritius.net/general_info/culture.php
Mazneski, M., & Chudoba, K. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effec-
tiveness. Organisation Science, 11(5), 473-492.
Minevich, M., & Richter, F. (2005). Global outsourcing report 2005. Retrieved May 16, 2006 from
http://www.globalequations.com/Global%20Outsourcing%20Report.pdf
Mockus, A., & Herbsleb, J.D. (2001). Challenges of global software development. Proceedings of the Sev-
enth International Software Metrics Symposium, Naperville, IL, United States
Mohagheghi, P. (2004). Global software development: Issues, solutions, and challenges, Retrieved April
07, 2009 from http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su/publ/parastoo/gsd-presentation-slides.pdf
Myers, M. D., & Avison, D. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research in information systems. Quali-
tative Research in Information Systems, 4, 3-12
Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action.
Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Nothard, P. (2000). South Africa becomes an outsourcing economy. Retrieved April 07, 2009 from
http://www.itweb.co.za/office/bdsol/0008280843.htm
81
Obata, A., & Sasaki, K. (1998). Office Walker: A virtual visiting system based on proxemics. Proceedings
of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Seattle, Washing-
ton, United States
Paasivaara, M. (2003). Communication needs, practices, and supporting structures in global inter-
organisational software development projects. Proceedings of the ICSE International Workshop on
Global Software Development, Portland, Oregon, IEE Computer Society.
Paasivaara, M. & Lassenius, C. (2004). Using iterative and incremental process in global software devel-
opment. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Global Software Development, International
Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004), Edinburgh, Scotland.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Perry, D. E., Staudenmayer, N., & Votta, L. G. (1994). People, organisations, and process improvement.
IEEE Software, 11(4), 36-45.
Prikladnicki, R., Audy, J., & Evaristo, R. (2003). Distributed software development: Toward an under-
standing of the relationship between project team, users and customers. Proceedings of International
Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), Angers, France.
Ramesh, V. & Dennis, A. R. (2002). The object-oriented team: Lessons for virtual teams from global soft-
ware development. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS35), Hawaii.
Robillard, P. N. & Robillard, M. P. (2000). Types of collaborative work in software engineering. The Jour-
nal of Systems and Software, 53(3), 219-224.
Sarker, S., & Sahay, S. (2002). Information systems development by US-Norwegian virtual teams: Implica-
tions of time and space. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Hawaii.
Seaman, C. (1996). Organisational issues in software development: An empirical study of communication.
Ph.D. Thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Maryland.
Shami, N. S., Bos, N., Wright, Z., Hoch, S., Kuan, K. Y., Olson, J., & Olson, G. (2004). An experimental
simulation of multi-site software development. Proceedings of the 2004 conference of the Centre for
Advanced Studies on Collaborative research, Ontario, Canada.
South African languages and culture. (n.d.). Retrieved on April 24, 2009 from http://www.sa-
venues.com/sa_languages_and_culture.htm
Statistics South Africa. (2008). Mid-year population estimate: 2008. Retrieved on July 20, 2009 from
http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022008.pdf
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Suchan, J., & Hayzak, G. (2001). The communication characteristics of virtual teams: A case study. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 174-186.
Tradersafrica. (n.d). Mauritius: An overview of MITCO. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2009 from
http://www.tradersafrica.com/articles.asp?articleid=%7BEDE8FE1C-05C4-4D44-AA74-
D6D7352FA656%7D
Van Ryssen, S. & Hayes-Godar, S. (2000). Going international without going international: Multinational
virtual teams. Journal of International Management, 6, 49-60.
Walsham, W. (2002). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. In M. D. Myers, & D.
Avison (Eds.), Qualitative research in information systems. London: Sage Publications.
The World Factbook. (n.d.). Center for International Research, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
82
Appendix 1: Sample Open Coding Sheet
Case Inter- Question Name Interview Statement Paragraph Lin Concept/Property Dimensions Category
viewee e
1 1 You've already told me I have more than two 1 1 Team-Customer-culture Little Complete Strategies to overcome cultural
that you've got more than teams because I have Dedication issues
two teams more than 2 customers.
1 1 But its two different That is why we have 14 1 Team-Customer-culture Little Complete Strategies to overcome cultural
styles of management, different teams Dedication issues
how do you cope with
that? (culturally speak-
ing)
1 1 You have one specific Yes, because the cus- 3 1 Team-customer-preference little Complete Strategies to overcome cultural
team for one specific tomer preferences are dedication issues
customer? different. In terms of
technology, in terms of
environment, in terms of
maturity, [the approach
there is], communica-
tion strategy etc. are
completely different.
People are different.
Appendix 2: Sample Axial Coding Sheet

Link emanating Link TOWARDS Description Direction Interview Statement Interview
FROM the prop- the property Question
erty
Communication Foreign language By having a formal UP Hmmm… good ques- Do you think
style issues communication style, tion… I think probably that you use
communication issues not too much in kind of some expres-
can be reduced formal business com- sions that are
munications. Certainly typically from
you’ll have the guys out South Africa?
here talking about the
things like robot and […]
Appendix 3: Category Listing

Meta-Category Category Concept / Property
Communication Communication among Communication need [Random Phases –Specific Phases]

Practices team members
Ease of contact initiation [Easy – Difficult]
Employees physical proximity [ Different countries – Same Room]
Number of communicants [2 – Unlimited]
Physical encounters among teams [Never – Frequent]
Communication channel Communication channel [Dry – Warm]

description
Communication level [Minimal – Constant]
Communication style [Informal – High Business Style]
Information filter through [Completely wrong Information filtered through – Cor-

rect information filtered through]
News type [Good – Bad]
Communication facilitators Flexi-time implementation level [Minimal flexi-time – Maximum flexi-time]
Foreign worker establishment [Permanently – Temporarily]
Physical encounters importance [Not important – Really important]
Communication strategy Common language [Different language used – Common language used]
Communication planning [No planned communication – Planned communication]
Email response time [1 hour – 5 days]
Team-customer-communication strategy [Contact with external customer allowed

– contact with external customer not allowed]
Cues transmission com- Perception of efforts [No perception of efforts – Complete perception of efforts]
munication
Reassurance level [Little – High amount]
Culture Individual culture Individual culture description [Minimal characteristics – Strong characteristics]
Individual culture prevalence level [Minimal – Maximal]
National culture National cultural prevalence level [No prevalence – High level of prevalence]
Organisational culture Organisational culture prevalence level [No prevalence – High level of prevalence]
Organisational values [Not influenced by – Highly influenced by]
84
Tanner
Meta-Category Category Concept / Property
Cultural issues Cultural difference impact [Little amount of cultural issues – High amount of cul-
tural issues]
Technology Chat Feedback time [Very slow – Very fast]
Formality level [Informal - Formal]
Frequency of use [Very rarely – Very often]
Task-technology structure fit [Low fit – High level of fit]
Tool efficiency [Low - Excellent]
Email Cues transmission [Little – High amount]
Effectiveness level [Low - High]
Tool efficiency [Low - Excellent]
Feedback time [Very slow – Very fast]
Formality level [Informal - Formal]
Tool disadvantage [Minimal - Maximal]
Infrastructure Infrastructure setup [Minimal setup – Excellent setup]
Connection speed [Very bad – Very good]
Infrastructure difference [Similar infrastructure – Different infrastructure]
Project Management Tool Task-technology structure fit [Low fit – High level of fit]
Net Meeting Demonstration ability [Inability to demonstrate – High ability to demonstrate]
Biography
Maureen Tanner, MCom: Maureen is a PhD associate and Lecturer
in the Department of Information Systems, University of Cape Town,
South Africa. Her research interests include Global Software Devel-
opment, Agile Methods, and the application of Agile Methods in the
distributed software development setting.
85

Communication and Culture in Global Software Development: The Case of Mauritius and South Africa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communication and Culture in Global Software Development: The Case of Mauritius and South Africa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations Volume 4, 2009

Communication and Culture in

Accepting Editor: Bob Travica

The Social Context

Communication and Culture in GSD

Parsing Patterns and the Shared Experience

Table 1 - Cultural Awareness Practices

Table 2 - Characteristics of the Mauritian and South African Case Studies

Concepts coded per interview Relationship coded per interview

Figure 1 – Number of Concepts and Relationships from Coding Process

Table 3 - Case Study 1 Sample

CASE 2– South Africa

Table 4 - Case Study 2 Sample

Results from Open Coding

Table 5 - Meta Category Description

Results from Axial Coding

Links from communication practices to communication practices

Links from communication practices to GSD process issues

Links from communication practices to GSD project

Links from communication practices to GSD team

Links from communication practices to GSD value issues

Links from communication practices to culture

Links from technology to communication practices

Links from technology to GSD process issues

Links from technology to GSD project

Links from technology to technology

Links from culture to communication practices

Results from selective coding

Figure 2 – Final Research Model

Technology and Communication Practices

Technology and Culture

InfoPlease. (n.d.). Mauritius. Retrieved April 24, 2009 from

Appendix 2: Sample Axial Coding Sheet

Appendix 3: Category Listing

Communication Communication among Communication need [Random Phases –Specific Phases]

Employees physical proximity [ Different countries – Same Room]

Number of communicants [2 – Unlimited]

Physical encounters among teams [Never – Frequent]

Communication channel Communication channel [Dry – Warm]

Communication style [Informal – High Business Style]

Information filter through [Completely wrong Information filtered through – Cor-

News type [Good – Bad]

Communication facilitators Flexi-time implementation level [Minimal flexi-time – Maximum flexi-time]

Foreign worker establishment [Permanently – Temporarily]

Physical encounters importance [Not important – Really important]

Communication planning [No planned communication – Planned communication]

Email response time [1 hour – 5 days]

Team-customer-communication strategy [Contact with external customer allowed

Individual culture prevalence level [Minimal – Maximal]

Organisational values [Not influenced by – Highly influenced by]

Meta-Category Category Concept / Property

Technology Chat Feedback time [Very slow – Very fast]

Formality level [Informal - Formal]

Frequency of use [Very rarely – Very often]

Task-technology structure fit [Low fit – High level of fit]

Tool efficiency [Low - Excellent]

Email Cues transmission [Little – High amount]

Effectiveness level [Low - High]

Tool efficiency [Low - Excellent]

Feedback time [Very slow – Very fast]

Formality level [Informal - Formal]

Frequency of use [Very rarely – Very often]